Dean Weingarten has a good find at Ammoland.
Judge Eduardo Ramos, the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, has issued an Opinion & Order that a ban on stun guns is constitutional. A New York State law prohibits the private possession of stun guns and tasers; a New York City law prohibits the possession and selling of stun guns. Judge Ramos has ruled these laws do not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Let's briefly…… [read more]
The debate over inertia-driven autoloaders vs. gas-operated semiautos has been going around the shotgun world since the conclusion of World War II. For more than a century, inertia guns have been in the hands of hunters, thanks to John Moses Browning’s Auto-5, and a Danish gunsmith, Christer Sjorgren, who created the inertia system Benelli and other gun manufacturers utilize. Gas-operated guns came about after WWII with the development of the M1 Garand, the battle rifle U.S. troops used in combat. Starting in the 1950s, Browning, Winchester, and Remington all began producing gas guns. The arguments amongst hunters and competition shooters over who did it best—inertia or gas—have swirled around late-night campfires ever since.
One system isn’t inherently better than the other, but there are benefits and drawbacks of both. And honestly, you shouldn’t pigeon-hole yourself into shooting gas or inertia. My three favorite modern 12-gauge shotguns are the Beretta A390 Silver Mallard, Winchester SX3, and Benelli Super Black Eagle 2. The first two are gas-operated, and the SBE2 is an inertia gun. I like using the guns for different times of the year and different shoots. The Beretta is for clays, ducks, pheasants, and turkeys. The Benelli is my go-to dark goose gun because it patterns so well beyond the edge of the decoys on fickle/stubborn honkers that don’t like to finish in the kill hole. For spring snow goose season, I wanted an affordable, soft-shooting autoloader, and the SX3 fits that bill.
There are few modern inertia-driven shotguns that have unmanageable recoil. Yes, they are going to pound you harder than most gas guns, and if you shoot a 2-ounce 3.5” turkey load out of an A5, it might well rattle your bones. If you hunt and shoot a lot, and you’re an old or smaller shooter, a gas gun might be for you. Two to three months straight of shooting is a lot for one shoulder to bear, and a gas-operated auto will soften some of the felt recoil.
There is more at the link.
I’m not a shotgun aficionado. But I do value lack of recoil would pay a premium for the pleasure of shooting a gun that has less recoil.
Readers who have more knowledge than I do may wish to weigh in on their favorite shotgun, and reasons why.
One of the first things I noticed when I began firing a red-dot-equipped pistol was my trigger control and grip were not as refined as I thought they were. I noticed the dot would ever-so-slightly dip or slide to the left during my trigger press, ultimately resulting in some 9-ring hits instead of 10- or X-ring impacts on an NRA B8 bull’s-eye at 25 yards. Feedback from the sight allowed me to focus on these shortcomings and make adjustments to my technique.
Dry-fire is the best way to shorten the learning curve, all in the comfort of your home. With the sight turned off (and the pistol empty, of course), practice framing your target within the window of your red-dot sight. On press-out, level the pistol as soon as possible, pick up the target through the glass, and ride it out to extension. Next, try this from the low-ready position, and then from the holster. Once this feels comfortable, activate the sight, and you’ll be surprised at how quickly you pick up the dot upon presentation. Speed and efficiency will come with practice.
I guess it’s like anything else – practice. But first, must get guns that have mount for optic. This means new guns in most instances.
The court granted the City’s petition. The court acknowledged that Lori could legally “walk . . . into any gun store and qualify to buy a handgun . . . and put [it] in that gun safe.” But it held that the City was nevertheless authorized to take the “low hanging fruit” of the guns the Rodriguezes already owned, irrespective of Lori’s ability to buy more, because of the danger that Edward presented. Stating that it was not “ignoring [Lori’s] Constitutional Rights,” the court concluded that it was not appropriate to return the firearms given the public safety concerns at stake.
Ah, those “low hanging fruit” guns.
The only thing low hanging about this is the moral compass of the fruits and nuts who made this decision.
Question from my wife tonight: “What is your opinion? Who has the authority to open the economy back up – the president or the governors? There’s a hot debate over that with the talking heads and MSM.”
Me: The premise of the question is false. You’re asking who has the authority to undo something no one had the constitutional authority to do to begin with.
This is why HR 6110, The Defective Firearms Protection Act, introduced by Representative Debbie Dingell, should be a very big deal. This very short bill, two pages long in its official form. It has two very short sections and counting the labeling of the section titles, it is all of 79 words long.
But these 79 words mark a monumental shift in power from elected officials that the American people can hold accountable to the administrative state, with grave implications for the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. It’s not what the law puts in place, it’s the restriction that it lifts which Second Amendment supporters should worry about.
Under 15 USC 2052, firearms of all types are not considered consumer products, and under 15 USC 2079, firearms are generally excluded from the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
“Because the Consumer Product Safety Commission lacks the authority to recall firearms, faulty guns remain on the market and pose a risk to public and household safety,” said Dingell in the release. She went on to press the nonsense claim that more is done to regulate products like highchairs and bicycles than firearms.
[ … ]
Imagine the CPSC telling Rock River Arms to stop making all of their modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms. The company would have to comply or face civil and criminal penalties. Litigation would also be much more difficult that in challenging a law.
I know folks at RRA and I don’t want them or anyone to have to go through this. The controllers never sleep. We can’t either. Oppose it by all means necessary.
I don’t think you understand how this works. You use these words, but I don’t think you really understand what they mean. You can’t just “remove” things from the internet. It’s available, and everyone who currently wants the files, has the files. If someone finds themselves wanting them in the future, they can find them at numerous places.
It’s sort of like when George Soros tried to get video of his interview off of YouTube with him telling stories of how he worked with the Nazis to round up Jews, and had no remorse for it. Even Soros’s money and Google’s power couldn’t remove the videos. Every time Google would remove one, users would add two more, and so on, until Google eventually gave up. Just go to YouTube and search for “george soros helped nazis round up jews.”
At a recent post by Glenn Reynolds, one commenter wrote “I suspect when the history of this virus is written this is going to be one of the very ugly chapters – the resistance to using the HCQ drug cocktail early in the process. The number of lives it would have saved will be staggering.” Another commenter wrote “As most know, the media/Democrat politicians/FDA want the use of the hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin/zinc combination to be restricted until late in the course of the infection, when the patient’s infection is well-advanced. As a physician, this baffles me. I can’t think of a single infectious condition — bacterial, fungal, or viral — where the best medical treatment is to delay the use of a anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, or anti-viral until the infection is far advanced.”
There is much more at the link. The comments are well worth the time to study them. Indeed, the chapter on this will be ugly, and will likely end in lawsuits, political consequences, and unnecessary deaths. I’ve had email exchanges with trusted readers on this issue, medical professionals, who are concerned about side effects for certain morbidity indicators. True enough, any medication must be administered by qualified personnel, but we know enough now to understand that it is a safe drug, and effective for the purpose of prophylaxis in this case.
There is actually much more than that, but you get the point. There is copious evidence of its effectiveness and relative safety. My daughter (surgical and ER NP) told me this long ago. There are certainly side effects for all medications, but of the many she has had to prescribe, this one is way down on the list of medications of concern.
But the bureaucracy still resists? Is there no prior evidence of its effectiveness and safety? Why yes, there is.
Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases including malaria, amoebiosis and human immunodeficiency virus is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. The fact that the drug has significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use.
This is a conclusion statement by a NIH study on Coronavirus (Covid-19 is SARs, Bat-SARs + some proteins that mimic HIV). This study, entitled “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread,” was completed and published on August 22, 2005, a study of which Dr. Fauci is certainly aware.
The truth about this effective and safe medication is far more sinister. For political reasons, the administrative state is opposing the very prophylaxis they recommended in 2005 for this disease.
The same bureaucracy is still selling the snake oil that this virus is zoonotic. The two videos below show, based on both genetic analysis and paper trail, this virus has an extremely low probability of being zoonotic. This virus has been studied at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in Canada, Harvard, and at the Wuhan institute. Actual biological material was stolen from the study in Canada, and the Obama administration actually stopped the funding for the study (apparently too late) when they saw the supercharging of the SARs virus that the researchers were pursuing – with the same visiting collaborating Chinese researcher in all instances.
The oath to “First, do no harm” apparently means little to nothing when it comes to the comparison of hatred for Mr. Trump. That oath will mean much more when they enter eternity.
Update: Welcome to Instapundit readers (thanks to Glenn for the link), and welcome again to WRSA readers. To readers, I appreciate your patronage.
HILLVIEW, Ky. (WDRB) — The pastor of a Bullitt County church says he won’t comply with an order to self-quarantine while he and his attorney discuss their next steps.
Troopers with Kentucky State Police arrived at Maryville Baptist Church on Easter Sunday morning to record license plate information of churchgoers who attended a mass gathering during the coronarivus pandemic.
Pastor Jack Roberts and his allies have argued they have a constitutional right to continue in-person church services, and Sunday, dozens of families attended the Easter service at the Bullitt County church despite an executive order from Gov. Andy Beshear that prohibits mass gatherings in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19. Beshear said Friday that anyone who participates in mass gatherings of any type during Easter weekend will be required to self-quarantine for two weeks.
The troopers placed notices under cars’ windshield wipers that say, in part, “This vehicle’s presence at this location indicates that its occupants are present at a mass gathering prohibited by Orders of the Governor and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. As a result, this vehicle’s occupants, and anyone they come into contact with, are at risk of contracting COVID-19, a respiratory illness that can be severe and lead to death, particularly for older adults and those with underlying heart, lung, kidney and immunity issues.”
According to Beshear, the license plate information will be forwarded to local health departments, which will then present orders to self-quarantine for 14 days at the car owners’ homes. Failure to comply could result in further enforcement, the notices say.
“During this sacred week for many Americans, AG Barr is monitoring govt regulation of religious services,” Kupec tweeted. “While social distancing policies are appropriate during this emergency, they must be applied evenhandedly & not single out religious orgs. Expect action from DOJ next week!”
This statement means nothing. “Evenhandedly.” “Not single out religious orgs.” There is nothing in that statement explaining that the constitution cannot be suspended by orders of anyone.
These are very troubling signs, all of the indicators of opportunistic totalitarianism. But useful nonetheless.
Take a look at the cops in the picture. You’ve heard it a thousand times. “We LEOs believe in the second amendment, and we would never obey orders to confiscate firearms.”
And now you know. If the Kentucky state police will suspend the right to free association and public worship, they will collect firearms from peaceable men. Because orders. Good men in Kentucky should remember this, forever. Those troopers are not good men.
The Kentucky State Police Commissioner is Rodney Brewer.
Through the first half of the Twentieth Century, military rifle cartridges were all between 6.5mm and 8mm (25-31 caliber), in order to achieve an acceptable rifle/ammunition compromise that balances:
Adequate range
Adequate penetration
Accuracy
Manageable recoil
Weight
Bulk
Durability
Overheating
Barrel length
Barrel life
Magazine capacity, and
Terminal effect
Those twelve issues represent competing, unavoidable trade-offs confronting weapon and ammunition designers. It is not possible to “adjust” any one of those without affecting all the rest. Go too far in any one direction, and you immediately run into deal-busting troubles!
That weapon design is a perpetual tradeoff is certainly true. There is no debating that point.
In the first half of the Twentieth Century, horse-mounted cavalry units persisted, although mostly obsolete by the end of WWI.
However, with cavalry still a military consideration, “adequate terminal effect” implied an ability to take-down a horse with one shot!
In our modern era, with horses no longer a consideration, 5.5mm (22 caliber) bullets (5.56×45 NATO, 5.45×39 Soviet, 5.7×28 FN) have emerged and are considered (by some) appropriate chamberings for modern, military main-battle rifles, but there is far from “universal agreement” on that!
Inadequate penetration and inadequate range have been persistently (since the 1960s) cited as critical failings with this modern generation small-caliber military cartridges.
Interminable technological attempts to address these two issues have failed to silence critics, including me.
And so the point of the article was what – that Farnam is still an opponent of the 5.56mm cartridge? We needed to be reminded of that?
So just to float the same point I’ve made before, Farnam leaves out the most important point in the discussion, and that is military doctrine. Doctrine leads to or produces tactics, and tactics produces weapons design, not vice versa.
There is no point in rehearsing the doctrinal changes that occurred to bring about the advent of the 5.56mm cartridge. But it is sufficient to say: that the use of fire and maneuver tactics (e.g., squad rushes), the reliance on crew served weapons for longer range combat (because more than 80% of enemy killed occurred throughout military history from crew served weapons, not rifles), and the reliance on DMs for even longer range shooting (those who have been specifically schooled in that science, and have been issued the weapons and gear for it), is legitimate military doctrine.
Farnam’s objections not withstanding. In a perfect world in which Soldiers and Marines didn’t have to wear body armor because they were never shot at, they were in perfect shape, they didn’t have to leave the line at 100 pounds of kit, and the U.S. military had unlimited resources, time and money, everyone could carry rifles that weighed twice as much and carry ammunition that weighed twice as much.
